May 2008

On the Other Hand

Anything you learn changes your brain. That’s the point of learning. And different types of learning strengthen different parts of your brain. For example, learning math changes your brain in a different way from learning art, or learning to juggle.

I studied economics in college. One thing I’ve noticed is that other people who have studied economics tend to think a similar way. Some of the similarity is probably because it takes a certain kind of person to be interested in economics in the first place. But I’m convinced that the study of economics changes brains in a way I can identify after about five minutes of conversation. In particular, I think the study of economics makes you relatively immune to cognitive dissonance.

The primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena. Cognitive dissonance is, at its core, the inability to recognize and accept other explanations. I’m oversimplifying, but you get the point. The more your brain is trained for economics, the less it is susceptible to cognitive dissonance, or so it seems.

The joke about economists is that they are always using the phrase “On the other hand.” Economists are trained to recognize all sides of an argument. That seems like an easy and obvious skill, but in my experience, the general population lacks that skill. Once people take a side, they interpret any argument on the other side as absurd. In other words, they are relatively susceptible to cognitive dissonance.

Recently I saw the best case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It was on Bill Maher's show, Real Time, which I love. Bill was interviewing Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, who has a book about global warming, called "Cool It." The economist made the following points clearly and succinctly:

1. Global warming is real, and people are a major cause.

2. When considering the problems that global warming will cause, we shouldn't ignore the benefits of global warming, such as fewer deaths from cold.

3. The oceans rose a foot in the last hundred years, and the world adapted, so the additional rise from global warming might not be as big a problem as people assume.

4. Developing economical fossil fuel alternatives is the only rational solution to global warming because countries such as China and India will use the cheapest fuel, period. If only the developed countries who can afford alternatives change their ways, it’s not enough to make a dent in the problem.

The Danish economist’s argument doesn't fall into the established views about global warming. He wasn't denying it is happening, or denying humans are a major cause. But he also wasn’t saying we should drive hybrid cars, since he thinks it won’t be enough to help. He thinks we need to make solar (or other alternatives) more economical. That’s the magic bullet. His views don’t map to either popular camp on this issue, and it created a fascinating cognitive dissonance in Bill Maher (a fan of hybrid cars) and his panelists. Here are their reactions after the interview:

Rob Thomas said the interview "...confused the shit out of me." (Yet the economist was completely clear and communicated well.)

Salman Rushdie said, jokingly, that what he heard was "There's no connection between smoking and lung cancer." By that he meant the author was denying that fossil fuels contribute to global warming. (The economist said exactly the opposite, and clearly.)

Bill Maher said, "...20 years later, this guy is going to say, 'You know what? Yeah, there is global warming." (The economist already said exactly that during the interview. In fact, his entire book is based on global warming being true and hastened by fossil fuels.)

You can see the full transcript for yourself here. The interview is about 60% into the show.

Bill Maher is a brilliant guy, whether you agree with his views or not. Salman Rushdie is brilliant too. I don’t know about Rob Thomas, but he looks bright enough. Why couldn’t these three people hear anything the economist was saying? It looks to me like a classic case of cognitive dissonance . They literally couldn’t recognize that the economist was on their side because he suggested considering both the positive and negative effects of global warming.

I know I harp on this topic too much. But I do think that understanding cognitive dissonance, especially when it happens to you, is the only way to understand the world.

You can see this phenomenon on this blog on a regular basis. If I say Iran has a legitimate economic reason for building nuclear reactors, because experts agree Iran is running out of oil, it will be interpreted as anti-semetic. If I say the evidence for evolution that is available to me personally, as a non-expert, looks sketchy, it is interpreted as an argument for creationism.

In summary, if you ever plan to use the phrase “on the other hand,” be sure to wear your Kevlar underpants.

My comment has nothing to do with global warming, Bill Maher, etc. Rather, it is of a more academic nature. I'm not sure how to say this kindly, so I'll just go ahead...with all due respect, your post reveals that you don't understand the principle of cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you should read up a bit.

Mr. Tauhidi's comment only serves to support the assertation of this column. His point was not that India is a producer of cheap products in contrast to the commenter's view that Indians produce quality products. He simply states that India uses cheap fuels. This statement does not place him on either side of the fence. Another great example of cognitive dissonance.

What the crap did you say about Indians using cheap fuels? India is not what you imagine. The next time you use a computer software to draw a cartoon or write a blog... remember a part of the software might have been created in India.

Those who define "cognitive dissonance" don't have the intelligence to intuitively understand the phrase. It needs no definition, as the meaning is intuitively obvious if you know what the words "cognitive" and "dissonance" mean on their own. Arggg! The idiots run amok. Adam's use of the term if perfectly fitting with the contraction of those two words. Only a simpleton confines the meaning to a narrow subset of what the contraction can be interpreted to mean.

Maher is very intelligent, but he is a dim as a 10 Watt bulb. There's a huge difference between intelligent and brilliant and nobody makes this more obvious than Maher himself. He has said, perhaps more than anyone I know, the words "I don't understand it" or "I don't understand them", or "It makes no sense." ... etc.

The true mark of a brilliant person requires the ability to remove yourself from your own perspective and see things through the eyes of another ... something which Maher admittedly is incapable of doing.

This is precisely why he gets so many things wrong - like misunderstanding what Lomborg was saying. This is also why he spews so many complete fabrications - he's either too lazy to put himself in the shoes of another or he's too lazy to take the time to find out if the rumor he heard is correct. If you got a penny for every false rumor he carelessly claimed was a fact then you'd be rich.

Are there two types of economists? One immune to cognitive dissonance (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg)and one suffering from cognitive dissonance (e.g. Partha Das Gupta who recently pointed out why the "Danish economist" was telling a wrong story). The coverage which Lomborg receives demonstrates that in the name of economics one can talk nonsense and get respect!

Are there two types of economists? One immune to cognitive dissonance (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg)and one suffering from cognitive dissonance (e.g. Partha Das Gupta who recently pointed out why the "Danish economist" was telling a wrong story). The coverage which Lomborg receives demonstrates that in the name of economics one can talk nonsense and get respect!

Scott Adams wrote: "Salman Rushdie said, jokingly, that what he heard was "There's no connection between smoking and lung cancer." By that he meant the author was denying that fossil fuels contribute to global warming. (The economist said exactly the opposite, and clearly.)"

First, Lomborg is a Political Scientist with a speciality in statistics (remember the old saying about statistics?). He's not an economist.

Regarding the smoking cancer quote, you interpret it with your own possible bias. What Rushdie could very well mean is that the doctor says "you need to stop smoking" and the smoker's response is "let's do research on alternatives to cigarettes" when in fact the solution is to stop smoking.

People don't want to quit smoking. And they don't want to stop using fossil fuels (One oil production peaks in the next few years and economic problems result from it I think people are going to puff long and hard on whatever form of carbon they can get--but that's a different issue/argument).

Scott Adams wrote: "I think the study of economics makes you relatively immune to cognitive dissonance" and "The primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena."

I actually think physics is a better way to learn about explanations and physicists who have taken at look at economics have found it wanting. Economics, as a social science, tends to be infected with ideological bias.

The problem with Lomborg's approach is that he selectively quotes information in order to make his case. He focuses on Britain when discussing heat deaths versus cold deaths because it looks good for Britain. For the world, heat deaths will swamp the gain from less cold deaths. He doesn't consider the populations that exist on the coastlines now compared to in the twentieth century in order to account for sea rise. He doesn't look at agricultural effects. He selectively quotes the IPCC report, only pulling and using data that supports his case.

The problem with Lomborg is that he really doesn't have a proposal. He's just telling the smoker to keep smoking and hopefully research and development might make a difference someday.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I studied economics and politics, and I'm now a practicing economist. I find that as long as a viewpoint fits within the economic paradigm, it can be readily accepted by economists. Where a viewpoint cannot be assessed numerically (for example), it is rejected out of hand. This leads to the rejection of solutions to problems which are less easily quantifiably assessed.

Actually I had a rather similiar discussion with my former boss a while back. He was vehemently for reducing carbon emissions. This took place in a room with no less than three computers running. He had just returned from a business meeting. In his car.

I wonder how much power it takes to get Bill Maher into your TV set. I wonder if HE knows. I wonder if he cares. Surprisingly enough, I don't see many people in favour of austerity riding around on bicycles. The general attitude seems to be: someone should do something about it!

I was about ready to give up on Bill Maher, but on two shows that took place about a month ago, rather than mouthing the liberal canon when a so-called environmentalist came on, he called the "environmentalist" to task for opposing expansion of nuclear power in the United States while continuing to blather about global warming.

However ...

In the 2006-07 season he had a panel with two lefties and one reasonably articulate conservative. However, with the new season he seems to have given up on that. Now, as previous posters have said, it's a circle jerk.

Part of the problem is that Maher's show has devolved, sadly, into a very predictable circle-jerk of the like-minded.

There is no more balance on his "flat-table" discussion panel. It's a non-stop Bush-bash.

When Lomborg's comments wouldn't process through the Bush-bash consensus alogorithm, the panel reminded me of the Lost in Space robot when overloaded, he begins to belch smoke and repeats: "Does not compute. Does not compute."

Josh's statement prior was pretty accurate with what I've been taught of cognitive dissonance, which is dissonance arising between ones own thoughts/beliefs and ones actions. I think this is a much simpler case of the straw man distortion of Lomborg's argument, arising from the fact that Lomborg doesn't conform to the same exact perspective that Maher has on Global warming. As a result of groupthink, they suppress the actual statements made and see only what they want to see. Same thing we all have a tendency to do and must be aware of in order to avoid such fallacies. Maher's content is generally brilliant though, I agree.

Look, Scott, refusal to acknowledge facts is one possible result of cognitive dissonance. But it may also be caused by many other psychological effects. You keep throwing out this term "cognitive dissonance" but what you're describing is more about information bias and selective attention. I know it makes you sound smarter, but your misuse of the term is really starting to get old.

Cognitive dissonance is what happens when someone's view of themself is threatened. For instance, someone believes, "I am a nice person." You might then point out, "But you just beat a hobo with a stick of salami." This causes a threat to their self-view of them being a nice person. Confronted with evidence to the contrary of *how they define themselves* (the crux of cognitive dissonance you keep seeming to miss) they feel threatened. They must resolve the discomfort. They either accept the new information OR engage in cognitive dissonance. An example would be them replying, "Well, he was looking at me funny, and besides, Salami doesn't hurt that much." The answer doesn't quite address the problem, but it lets them explain away the discomfort.

Every time a person refuses to acknowledge information or fails to see things from a logical perspective isn't necessarily a case of cognitive dissonance. There are many other terms that better explain what is going on.

So stop getting it wrong.

(Now, the question is, will the fact that I'm pointing out your use of your favorite term is incorrect lead to you accepting this information, or will it lead to real, bonafide cognitive dissonance?)

"If I say the evidence for evolution that is available to me personally, as a non-expert, looks sketchy, it is interpreted as an argument for creationism."

You're wrong. We just say that that is one of the arguments creationists use. And to them (and therefore to you too) the answer always is the same: that means you don't know enough. The evidence available to me, personally, as an expert, looks appallingly overwhelming.

All this theory that you are trying to develop in this splendid topic was ALREADY developed by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman in his heuristic studies. Harvard has an entire book and class topics based in it. I base my entire comprehension of complex adult society and economy on this Nobel winning theory. I´m a doctor, I have already attended psychiatry in medical school, and I´m really sorry for not having enough time to further develop this comment here, today, but I would be content or fortunate if you want to discuss this. I have exactly the same problem of yours. I´m a rheumatologist, already participated in stem cell transplantation (yes, some rheumatologists do stem cell transplantation and chemotherapy). Because of this, I have to study ALL point of views, ALL expert opinion and ALL alternatives to save lives, and people frequently do not understand that multiple point of view. They simply adopt "a cause" and follow it. This is "heuristics of availability" (Kahneman´s explanation). Please, enter in contact (for free, of course) to discuss this topic and some health topics, if you want. There are serious media studies showing that health issues raise the audience in any kind of program or newspaper report. With respect, César.